Latest / Comps List Radio / Episode 11: 250 Series, Douglass Adair, "Jeffersonian Democracy," 1943

Transcript

Episode 11: 250 Series, Douglass Adair, "Jeffersonian Democracy," 1943 · Comps List Radio

• Robert Ferguson: Deepest, darkest depths of academia. This is Cobbs List Radio with ⁓ Rob Ferguson and Marie Totten brought to you by H. Pole. we were just ⁓ I I pressed record here a little, I was a little fast on the trigger finger on pressing record. And Marie and I were were discussing the ⁓ the remarkable aspects of how busy you can be in the summertime. And you know, I know we're academics, I know we, you know. There, you know, the the there there are lulls in our schedule, but we were both ⁓ commiserating about how busy we seem to be here in the height of summer. Marie, you were mentioning that you were, you know, you were being used as a as an errand ⁓ as a sort of errand girl for the s in the summertime because you don't need to be in the office nine to five. Yes, and happy to do it for any of my family members that love to listen to our a very intellectual podcast. Love to do it, do not mind. But yes, I am the go to in the summertime. Yeah. Doctors appointments, swimming appointments. I I have ballet shoes I have to buy today. Well that's my thing. You know, I have to buy ⁓ by five o'clock. And ⁓ you know, I am not the person that I would trust in the world to buy ballet shoes. That will be Not because I don't know how to do it, but it's I have no idea what I'm looking for. Right. Right. Hopefully you have detailed instructions. Zero instructions. Zero instruction. You know, she she's gonna end up with like two like big Mac boxes on her feet, like that. I'm sure she'll be very pleased with that. Yeah, she might find it. She's five, she might find it funny. Yeah. ⁓ well God speak with that. It doesn't matter. I'm gonna get a lecture from her anyway. She's a five year old girl and she loves to give lectures, so very true. anyway. So ⁓ this is the third episode, third episode in our ⁓ summer to yeah in our in our summer 250 series. And ⁓ this was, I will admit, my suggestion, and I and I made this suggestion entirely selfishly because I'd always wanted an excuse to read this. And so this gave me the excuse to read it. this is Douglas Adair's dissertation. the intellectual origins of Jeffersonian democracy. it is this has a very interesting history. Yes. This dissertation. ⁓ you know this is probably one of the few dissertations we'll ever do. Most of the time we'll do a book. But this ⁓ this was never turned there's some history. This was never really turned into a book. Right. Right. Until 2000 it's published, but not while a Derek's still here. Right. And there's a lot of controversy over that publication. there's a reason that ⁓ specifically we're doing this as the dissertation and not that 2000 book. ⁓ the reason being that there were people in his estate and close friends of Doctor Adair who were not happy about that publication. And so we're doing the dissertation and I encourage you to if you if you're interested in reading it to find the dissertation. I'm you know, I know the book was made in good faith, and there's no problem with that. ⁓ if that's all you can get your hands on, it's better than nothing. But ⁓ I do know ⁓ just from some people who knew Douglas Adair that there was some that there was some controversy about that book. And so ⁓ We're focusing on the original dissertation here. Yes. ⁓ Marie, had you ⁓ had you read this dissertation or any any works of Douglas Adair before this? I had not. ⁓ I am glad that you suggested it here. I did look at the 2000 publication and so I really at the the foreword and the epilogue, which were of course added there. so I did I did look through that. The the dissertation though is beautifully written. I mean it stands on its own. ⁓ it's a shame it was never made into a publication while Adair was alive. But hadn't read it, found it very interesting, definitely see it in the work of Balin and would. ⁓ just knowing ⁓ I was like, okay, this is where these ideas come from. Got it. Makes sense. Here's the foundation of the Republican synthesis. That's kind of been it was kind of underground for so long. And so I thought that was really interesting. The fact that a dissertation could have this much influence on the field, ⁓ in its, you know, original form was it was interesting. It was interesting. Yeah, this is the I I you know, after reading it, I'm like, this is the or text. Yes. Yeah. Of the of the, you know, of the ⁓ school ⁓ of the of the wood balin and even even you can see Robbins is influenced by it too. Yes he's influenced too and ⁓ absolutely you know Balin builds on this right this is right so ⁓ yeah I I and you're right it is beautifully written. I'm gonna be honest my dissertation was not this beautifully written. No. No. But he did have a bachelor's in literature and writing English focused. So that certainly helped. I did not ⁓ have that history all the way through. So did not have that training. So no, not as beautifully right. I'm a monkey it read as an edited I mean it could have gone. I mean, there were a few things, factual things that needed ironed out, but for the most part it it read as a polished, finished work. ⁓ it it is a beautifully written dissertation. the footnotes are Unbelievable. The expository footnotes are incredible. They're a they're a dissertation on their own. Yes. And ⁓ I'll be honest, I learned a considerable amount. I did too. I did too. And I think this will set us up very well for our next episode, which will of course be with the entire H Pole poll editorial team on the Federalist Papers. Right. I think we'll have to be better prepared than anybody after this. Absolutely. Yeah. ⁓ so it's probably ⁓ you know, Maria, how how much do you know about Douglas Adair? Well, I did some ⁓ background here on Adair and his life and kind of his career. I was very curious as I was going into this background on his career, especially as to why this never got published. Like did did his career take a different turn? And it did, but just some background here. So ⁓ he's born in New York City, but he lives in the South throughout most of his life. So Mobile in Birmingham, Alabama. ⁓ born in nineteen twelve. He gets his bachelor's in English literature from the University of the South, which I hadn't heard of, but I found is this ⁓ very prestigious liberal arts Episcopalian school in Tennessee. So very impressive there. Yes, Suwani. he goes gets his ⁓ masters at Harvard, his PhD at Yale, and it's at Yale in 1943 that he published it or he writes this dissertation. Not publishes, but writes this dissertation. ⁓ he is gonna work at a few different schools. He's an instructor at Yale. He teaches at Harvard for a bit. Eventually he's gonna end up at the College of William and Mary. And this is where his career takes this turn that I was very interested in. So he when he works at the College of William and Mary, he begins to work on their journal. And now the journal is known as like the early American journal. Like this is where you want to publish, it's the prestigious journal. So of course I'd heard about that. I did not know that it's a Dara that makes it the core journal of early America. And so that's his focus for throughout Mid forties into the late 40s, early 50s, there is working on building up this journal. And that's where he's gonna publish. Is he's going to have editorial control over the journal, and he we're gonna see his ideas come out in the articles that he publishes, the articles that he puts into the journal, and then his own writing. And his writing during this time is gonna center on the Federalist papers themselves. And he's got this thought this was really interesting. He's got this idea ⁓ that Madison wrote more of the Federalist papers than he's credited with. So he's looking at these men, he's studying the way that they write, he's studying the words that they use, their like philosophical influences here, and he says, Okay, there's ten to twelve disputed the authorship was disputed on these Federalist papers. Hamilton takes credit for them. Madison takes credit for them later. So Adair kind of getting in the heads of these ⁓ men, these founders, which I think comes across in the dissertation beautifully. I mean, you feel like you're with these early Americans, these founders as they're making these decisions and and writing these arguments down. But he decides, okay, these disputed articles are or these disputed Federalist papers were written by Madison. I can see the language here clearly. It's all lining up to be written by Madison. So he makes that claim. Later, you have some quantitative data from the use of a computer program that puts in the work of Madison and Hamilton, looks at those disputed papers, and determines, yeah, based on language, based on the wording, based on the philosophy, Madison wrote these. So this claim that Madison wrote more of the Federalist papers than he was credited with, not only does Adair prove it. but it's later proved by other technology. And I thought, you know, how he he really does push for Madison. I mean, you can tell in this dissertate. He he just really enjoys being inside Madison's head, which is a big place to be. You know, Madison is this intellectual, this philosopher. I totally buy into that. I mean, I did, you you know, Madison wrote everything down. We use Madison. We have those sources. Very important founder. But I didn't realize or I'd never been in the work of someone who appreciated Madison so much. And so it really was a neat experience to kind of get into this ⁓ earl ⁓ you know, early American philosopher's head and especially coming from someone who just appreciated him, who just appreciated that intellect. And and really, I mean it's it's Jeffersonian America, of course, is the title of the work. But it's Madison that embodies that ideology. And the two in the dissertation are one and the same. Yeah. ⁓ i I I love how you put that. I mean, there's a reason if as a historian today of early America you appreciate James Madison, it's because of Douglas Adair. I would think so. Right. When Douglas Adair is writing, James Madison is the forgotten of the of the key founder. He's not totally forgotten, of course, but he's not that he's not remembered. The Adair is researching at least. ⁓ Not so much when he's writing, but when he's kind of coming in his formative years when he's researching, Alexander Hamilton is the founder extraordinaire. If you look in the from the 1890s all the way through the 1920s, Alexander Hamilton is especially in the north, is the dominant founding father. He is the one who's given credit for everything. Okay. You know, we have plays now about Alexander Hamilton, but there were novels, novelizations of his life in like the night early 1900s and these strange biographies, I think songs written to him. So if you're looking at like Charles Beard is an Alexander Hamilton partisan. Yes, yes. Right. Yeah. And ⁓ even if he even if he i you know doesn't fully come to the same conclusions that Hamilton does, but Beard is giving Hamilton credit, right? Right. And that whole era, the progressive era, is the hand is in a lot of ways a reflection of Hamilton. Right. And Hamilton sort of becomes the the founder of the era. Jefferson is sort of the opposition figure. Right. And you see that in like Claude Bowers' work in the 1920s. And Jefferson is still the you know, the Democratic Party is still really associates themselves with Thomas Jefferson. And they they they they view the Republican plutocracy as the party of Hamilton. And so they're just redoing it through Thomas Jefferson, right? This early American battle. But Adair's coming to the table ⁓ with Madison. Exactly. And so he is sort of he's not forgotten, but he's not prominent. Adair makes him the Madison we know today. Yep. And he is absolutely a Madison partisan. Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. It is. Bree, how does Douglas Adair does Douglas Adair like Alexander Hamilton? I would say no. I mean he he does write about him and it's all eloquent. He you know he uses his words throughout but you have to do that when talking about Madison because that is the opposition. But I Douglas Adair my based on my reading thought that Hamilton was a monarchist. And the I the idea of this class conflict, which of course the Dare is pushing back directly against Beard in this dissertation. And he makes that very clear that he's pushing he thinks there's a hole here. He's pushing back against this economic determinism. And he sees Madison doing the same thing against Hamilton. Hamilton is saying it's a class conflict. It's always going to be rich versus poor. We've got to do something about that. And the way to do something about it is a permanent Senate and a permanent executive. Like you you and you protect those business interests. And Madison is saying, no, that is how the republic dies. Like you cannot sustain a republic with that ideology, just like ⁓ Adair is saying, no, Beard, it's not just economic determinism. Now he doesn't say that economic determinism isn't important. And I think that's an important part of the dissertation. Is he's not claiming ideology is the only thing pushing the founders, but he's saying it is something that is worth exploring. Like this idea of ec like, okay, there's some economic determinism here. Madison and Jefferson are farmers. They do have some kind of economic motivation, but they are also they also believe in this philosophy. They believe in this ideology. And of course, Adair focuses on Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment more than We see, you know, a focus on Locker. That's what Adair claims that they're focusing on is Hume here. And so he's saying they really believe these things. They are philosophers of their age. They're reading these things. They're interpreting these things. Just like we saw with Robbins and Balin taking these ideas. And of course, they're in conversation with Adair as they're developing their own ideas. And so they're taking these ideas and saying they're being used in the colonies. He's saying they're being used in the Constitutional Convention and then even after. And so you do have this kind of I mean, he he just lays out this back and forth, but to answer your original question, Hamilton is a monarchist, he is the opposition, Madison is the star of the show in this work. Yeah, exactly. ⁓ th this is the reactionary Hamilton that comes to here. Exactly. ⁓ The brilliant reactionary Hamilton. ⁓ yes. I don't think he at any point discredits Hamilton. I mean, he never says Hamilton isn't as brilliant as as Beard Beard argues here. He just says there's just way more to it. Yeah. It's just not that simple. And he's not the hero that you make him out to be. He also says that like what comes is that there's like one major And this is so funny. I I don't think I've ever I it's been so long, you know, the the you see this in a history book where or a dissertation or work like this where Adair says Hamilton has one like significant intellectual blockage in his head that he can't get past that Madison overcomes. Right. Right. And that is that Hamilton keeps thinking that everything that was absolutely true in the classical era has to be absolutely true now. Right. Whereas Madison doesn't. Right. And so like they're not immutable laws of nature to Madison, whereas they are to Hamilton. Exactly. Madison can take that work and put it into his context. Hamilton cannot do that. I mean, Hamilton just looks at that, you know, everything's the way it was in in ancient Rome or ancient ⁓ Greece. It's not going to translate. You know, it's not gonna adapt to the times that they're in. And Madison says, no, we can take these ideas and we can adapt them. I you know what, Marie, it was only by having this conversation with you that I I you know you were getting at this and it and it really just I fully they reached a point here that he is This work is him attacking, I mean, we know it's him attacking Beard in the Progressive School, but it's he's entirely attacking the notion of like a mechanical scientific history. Right. Yeah. And he's using Madison to he's using Madison and Hamilton to do it. Right. Like Hamilton is, you know, not only is he a re like he's a reactionary in the book, but you could argue he's Karl Marx. Yeah. Right? Yeah. And he is saying that and and Madison is the is some grand liberal critic of Marx. Or he's a dare criticizing Marx, essentially. Right, right, right. And it he's using Hamilton and it it's Madison and Hamilton is how he's doing it, but really he's attacking the whole notion of of like of the sort of timeless scientific history. that the early progressive historians and social scientists all thought they were studying. Right. That articulated very well. Yeah. There's no timeless rules. Every generation's a little different. Every place is a little different. Doesn't mean you can't learn things. Right. And there aren't trends. But it's not a laboratory. Right. This is why we have to have these discussions, Marie, because it's only by talking about this stuff back and forth that we Exactly. Exactly. It all starts to come together. It all starts to come out in our ⁓ miniature seminar discussions here. Right. ⁓ now, Marie, we we you know, he you worked at William and Mary for a while. ⁓ obviously this is not a ⁓ it it doesn't end it it ends very tragically and we should probably talk a little bit about the tragedy. Yes. So after William Mary, he does go to the Claremont Graduate School and he's gonna be there from I think fifty-five until his death in sixty-eight. He does die by suicide in May of nineteen sixty-eight. ⁓ and so he, you know, obviously he's dealing with a lot. We can't know how he's feeling, but his death means that that dissertation's never gonna be published. Like that's the end of his contribution to the Republican synthesis. That's not the end of h the influence of the dissertation by any means. We're gonna see this go forward. But the idea that that would be published while he I mean, obviously it's not gonna be published while he's alive. He's never gonna see that monograph. Yeah. Yeah, he never produces a monograph. Right. Right. Some very influential articles, never a monograph. Yeah. His ⁓ and y you did mention that his ⁓ uncovering of the ⁓ or the ⁓ of the Madison articles ⁓ or or or Federalist papers that had been attributed to Hamilton. I mean that the if you read nothing else else by Douglas Adair, find that essay and read it. It's really interesting. It's like a it's like a detective novel almost. Yes. Is yeah is how it reads. ⁓ I go out there and read it and he basically just goes, he's like, this is why this never made sense. To me. And, you know, this is where, like, you know, that a lot of people were just eager to give as much support to Hamilton as they possibly could. And but anyway, it's a really great article, if you can find it. I can't think of the or it's like the or ⁓ the disputed authorship of the Federalist Papers or something like that as a title. But find you won't have any trouble finding it. It's a great article. And his spame and the founding fathers essays are really good one too. Yes, that's what I have down here. I thought I had the title of the Madison one as well, ⁓ or the disputed papers one as well. But The Fame in the Founding Fathers is the kind of underappreciated, very, very influential ⁓ article that he does write and publish. And and he part of that argument is that it is more sophisticated than I'm gonna give it here, is that you know, it's not just their wealth. that they're looking out for or even broad-minded liberal notions. They're tr the the founders also recognize that they're living at this really important historical moment and are concerned and and want to be famous. Yes. Yes. They're looking to the future. Yes, they do. That's what he's arguing at least. They they absolutely are. ⁓ yeah. Anyway, that's a so anyway, Douglas Adair's tremendous lots of great work. ⁓ even though we didn't produce the monograph, lots of great work. And ⁓ but anyway, all right, so let's get back to this dissertation, which is what we're here to discuss. So, Marie, how would you, you know, we've we've talked about it a little bit so far, but what is the main arg what is his main argument against the Charles Beard school? Yeah, so his focus is gonna be on Federalist Tint. So this idea that factions will ultimately in the republic that if you have a faction that's majority, the minority will never have a chance to overcome that faction. And so the idea that Adair's looking at here is Madison's idea that if you have a large if you have a large republic, a diverse republic, then the republic can stand. That you can have a democracy if it's large and diverse. So he's taking these ideas from philosophers. Adair says he really believes this. This is not just an economic argument here because what Madison and Jefferson are ultimately going to argue is we need an agrarian society. That the only way this will work and and Adair takes this back to Aristotle. I mean he's taking this this ideology all the way back. And he says the only way that this can work is if you have an agrarian society and ultimately, you know, farmers are busy and they're focused on their immediate and they're independent. And so if you have that society spread out over the country You will have factions, but the factions will be small enough that you won't have a majority at any one time that will be tyrannical. And he's saying the way that Madison is interpreting this philosophy, because he can put it into its own context or his own context. He can look at it in 1787 and the events happening in 1787. And they are seeing, you know, they've got Shay's Rebellion, they've got these other popular uprising. You have ⁓ in some states property less men can vote in New Jersey for a while women can vote. You know, so you do see or they believe they're seeing this tyranny of the majority here and they need to do something about it. And the constitution kind of becomes that answer. But what Adair is looking at is he's tracing this idea of how to create this diverse agrarian republic and what that ideology is based on. And so again, Beard's arguing this is just pure economics. Jefferson and Madison have, they are farmers themselves. They are landowners. They are Virginians. They are going to they support this because that benefits them economically. ⁓ Adair is saying no, they believe this ideology. They want the republic to last and they really believe that this is how the republic is going to last. So just a an overview there, a a fairly general overview of kind of how he's looking at this. No, that's great. I mean that's ⁓ that's a really Because this is call I mean this is really complicated, this book. Like Yeah, if you get in yes. it's really complicated. And it's I find it very persuasive, but it's very complicated. Yeah. ⁓ so yeah, I mean, yeah, he he he's not arguing, he's he's granting that a lot of people at the constitutional convention are there purely to thinking in terms of class conflict. Right. Particularly Alexander Hamilton. Right. And Adair is arguing that, you know, in at the time, the the in Balin's book, later on, we see the influence of like the Anglo-Saxon experience of the Anglo-Saxon intellectual tradition. We also see ⁓ to go along with the ⁓ classical. The appreciation for the classical experience, particularly transmuted through or or that was transferred through Aristotle. ⁓ like Adair's focusing on the classics. Right. You know, so Balen's building on that and saying, no, it's not just the classics. There's this, you know, there there's the European history and Anglo-Saxon understandings of liberty to go with it as well. So Balin expands it through his use of pamphlets, but A dare is he's he's before them. And he's arguing that beer does not account for how important thinking about antiquity was to the founders, to all of the founders. And he says that from the perspective of the Alexander Hamilton crowd, the lesson that they take from Aristotle is that without a disinterested permanent executive. without a mixed c what what's called a mixed constitution that accounts for class, inside of the republic, the poor and the rich will go to will will consume themselves in civil war. Right. And he and that's one of Aristotle's conclusions. Right. So they think that they have the truth, capital T truth, as given to them through Aristotle, through Aristotle's summary of the various Greek city-states and through ⁓ Thucydides. Right. You know, for anybody who's read Thucydides, ⁓ the passage that is, if it's not, you know. We remember the Melian dialogues, like that's sort of the one that IR classes teach, but if you're a historian, I mean the the passage that will be most memorable to you is almost certainly going to be the Civil War in Coursaira. Yeah. It's visceral and it's scary. Yeah. And for those who Addison read that and it it scarred his mind. Is the terminology. Yeah. It's scarring all of their minds. Yes. Because so, ⁓ and and it scarred Thomas Hobbes's mind. I mean, Thomas Hobbes is one of the, you know, he he he's a ⁓ he translates Thucydides into English, right? Hard not to imagine. I mean, he's witnessing the English Civil War and thinking about Coursaira. Right. And it's not just Corsaira, but Corsaira is sort of the most acute visceral moment in in Thucydides in the Peloponnesian War, where when the Athenians conquer it, they unleash the democratic party basically on the oligarchic party. And it's a massacre. brutal like massacre doesn't begin to explain how that passage reads. And so to Adair, he's saying, listen, at the Constitutional Convention, they're trying to as from the perspective of Alexander Hamilton and and many others, their experience in the the the ⁓ confederation period has led them to believe has reinforced that notion inherited from Aristotle and Thucydides, that if they don't create a strong disinterested executive, course I'm in the future. ⁓ I that's pretty remarkable conclusion for Adair to come to. Right. Right. ⁓ and it it really does help you put when you think of it in those terms, all of a sudden the stakes of seventeen eighty seven are unbelievably high. Yes, especially when thinking that they they saw that. You know, they part of what makes this so complicated to me this this dissertation so complicated or so complex is how he gets into the minds of the founding fathers. How he I mean you really do feel like you're in conversation with them. You forget that this is his interpretation of what they're saying. And so you really feel by the end when he's talking about how this has scarred their minds. And I love that he uses that. And he's got a quote I'll find in a bit that he he uses to ⁓ from ⁓ Justice ⁓ Holmes when talking about, you know, good books scar the minds of their readers. But you can really see how if that did scar their minds the way that we see that in Adair, the way he sees that in the writing, they're worried about this. This is real to them. They had experienced Shades Rebellion. They had experienced these ⁓ popular uprisings or these governments who were arguing, these ⁓ opposition leaders who were arguing for small confederacies versus one united country. And so they that is real to them. That is real to them in a way that I don't think we can really appreciate today when we're so numb to all of this imagery. But that is what they were they were thinking of this passage that you described. They're thinking of this ⁓ philosophy. That's just as real. And he talks about this. That is just as real to Madison as the written account of Shay's rebellion. Yeah. He sees both in his mind. Yeah. Like, you know, the th they they're looking at Shay's Rebellion as they're like, this was a little Corsair, this could have been Coursaira. Yes. Right. And to ⁓ to somebody like Alexander Hamilton in the book, it basically was Coursaira. Right. Right. And that that process has begun. Right. Whereas Madison's at least able to look at that and go, okay. According to Adair at least, Madison is like, listen, this is not good. Right. And I can see how we can get to Corsaira here. But we're not there yet. Exactly. Exactly. And this is not the fifth century BC. Right. In Greece. There are different things going on here. Exactly. and but it it it is I mean, I I I I actually am convinced that the Coursaira ⁓ episode is that scarring on people's minds at the time. Yeah. Yeah. I mean Adair convinces me of that. Yeah. I mean I'm trying to think if there's a movie or something like that that our generation saw, that there's like a just a moment that we all remember that's scarred in our brains. Right. I'm sure I mean I know my parents' generation, it was old Yeller. Yeah. Yeah. Right. I'm I'm sure if you we needed to have a separate conversation for an hour to have done the heaven. Exactly. Exactly. But I'm sure we could find one. Yeah, I'm sure we could find one that everybody, you know, I I'm 39, I'm an older millennial or whatever we're supposed to be called. I'm sure we can find ⁓ a scene in a movie that we all remember and go, ⁓ yeah. Yeah. Well, Corsaira is that to this generation. Corsair is the end of old Yeller. Right. To to the founders generation. And ⁓ So I can I can see how that casts a major shadow. Yeah. Yeah. They want to avoid that at all costs. Right. And like you said, Hamilton believes it's ha it's happened. And now we have to Sorry, go ahead. No, go ahead, go ahead. I'm just gonna say, because and Hamilton knows that he's gonna be victim number one. Right. Yes. Yeah. That's what he thinks, we're sure. Right? Yonison and Jefferson might sort of be able to go, Okay, I could ⁓ you know actually, you know, here's another perfect example for Southern ⁓ historians, especially antibellum Southern historians, the revolution in Haiti. And the re the upper the slave uprising in Haiti. And then, you know, th that casts such a mass of shadow over Southern slaveholders. and then Nat Turner's rebellion kind of reinforces it. Right. But when ⁓ You know, one of the things that you know is going through antibellum slaveholders' minds before the Civil War, before emancipation, is that if we give an inch, we're gonna get the Ha we're gonna we are gonna ha be treated and massacred as brutally as the slave owners were in Haiti. Yeah, that's an excellent example. And so they have that notion in their heads about Coursaira. And mod and you know, Montesquieu, according to Adair. That's what he's worried about when he comes up with the mixed constitution. Right. Right. Is Montesquieu believes that in a republic you need the mixed constitution. And, you know, Montesquieu admires the British system and so does Hamilton. So they look at the the the British system as commons, lords, and exec and monarch or ma chief magistrate or whatever you want to call it. Right. Okay, that's what you need. You need a you know, you need an estate system sort of an estate system with an aristocracy, commons, and monarch. Yeah. And that's how you keep things in balance. And then how do you do that in a republic? You know, there then Montesquieu has his own notions for that, which is one of them is being it's gotta be a small republic. Right. And it won't survive if it's large. And it won't survive if it's large. And this is a and this is like one of the things that Adair brings up about Hamilton that never like and never occurred to me. That, you know, why does Madison all of a sudden think that a large you know, republic is gonna work compared to a small republic? You're not going to have that awful civil war in a large republic like you will in a small republic. And, you know, I'd always sort of thought of it in political theory and interest group politics terms, Federalist had Gare makes it very clear. He's like, in a small republic, you live right near each other. Right. Right. So and and it's very easy for it the classes to become distinct in a small city state sort of thing. Yes. And people are confronted with the class situation day in and day out. And I mean, heck, you it's it's not hard to to imagine that because I mean if you've read Marx Marx, you know, the proletarian is proletariat is the revolutionary class. Yeah. And they're an urban class. Exactly. Exactly. It's this urban consolidation that Madison is pushing, saying this will not work. Exactly what you think is going to happen, Hamilton, will happen if you continue to push people into these urban areas and focus on commerce. Because exactly what you just said, the proletariat, the workers, the poor are gonna see how well the rich are doing. They're gonna be right there. They're gonna have access to them in a way that a large diverse republic ⁓ population would not. Right. And that intimacy it will breed ⁓ that intimacy will breed ⁓ what's the word I'm looking for? ⁓ contempt. Yeah. Yep. And the and this is where you get those cycles, those polybian cycles, right? ⁓ because again they're also you know, polybius is another thinker that they they've all kind of got in their minds, but that ⁓ where You know, the if the oligarchs have power, have total power, they're just gonna view they just end up viewing everybody at the Hoy Paloi as their own ⁓ you know, as as little instruments to their own enrichment. Right. And but if the mob gets power, they're going to you know they will unleash the burden of a million insults. Right. And ⁓ and the wrath is so associated with that. And so yeah, this is where Madison says The small republic is way more dangerous. Right. And what's that going to lead to? Because if you have a small republic and they do rebel, I mean, there's really one of two options. Either you go the Marxian direction and you have, you know, communist state or the beginnings of communist state, or you go the other direction and you have a monarch who is powerful. He can put down these rebellions. And that's the direction Jefferson and Han or Madison see it going. is that if you have this state that Hamilton wants, you're going to have a monarchy. And it's gonna be a strong monarchy to keep the the lower classes in check. And so that's how they're looking at it long term. And I think he spells that out very well throughout the text. Right. And and the other thing that he point that they point out both and I think it might even be Jefferson of the text that does this rather than Madison. But I I it was probably Madison. If I think about it, it's a dare. If it was a really original idea, it a dare attributes it to Madison. ⁓ but that ⁓ you know, in his reading of history, the monarch is usually not the tool of the aristocrats. The monarch allies himself with the mob against the aristocrats, right? Which is, by the way, what Machiavelli recommends doing, by the way, for the prince. Right. Right. Yeah. Well, you don't just because and Machiavelli's point is that if you don't, if you become a ⁓ that if you ally yourself with the aristocrats, the mob will just view you as a replaceable aristocrat. You're an aristocrat like anybody else. So who cares? We have no attachment to you. You could be anybody. But if you attach yourself to the people against the aristocrats, you are unique. Right. Right. And so Jefferson and Madison look back and go, okay, yeah, that that's actually the what history tells us. Right. And we don't want that either. Hamilton, you think you want this, but I don't think you really understand what you're getting at, what's gonna happen here. No. No. and ⁓ yeah, and and yet Madison and Hamilton end up writing the Federalist papers. Right. Right. Together. Together. It's a tremendous cooperative project. Yes. And of course, Adair gives Madison credit for, you know, compromising with Hamilton and saying, okay, I'm willing to do this for the greater good, but we still disagree on almost everything. But that's part of the we need the Constitution. We've compromised in the Constitution. Hamilton did not get his way in the Constitution. They shut that down very quickly. after he stands up and gives this speech basically supporting and and wanting to push through a monarchy that Madison just rips apart. But that but they do agree to work together for the overall good because both agree at the end of the day that there needs to be a new government. That there has to be a stronger federal government to keep all of this together and to keep the experiment alive. And I think Madison's looking Adair makes it out that Madison is looking toward the future in a way that Hamilton is not. What and Madison doesn't think that it's gonna last forever. He doesn't think that, you know, this is the the constitution is a surefire way to make sure that the country stands for a long period of time. I think that Adair says twenty Madison says twenty five, thirty years. He thinks and then there will have to be some a a great overhaul because and and think of the context in which Madison is writing, the country is much smaller. And so he's saying we can only spread out so far before we begin to once again consolidate in these urban settings, and this is going to be a problem all over again. And then he revises the length of time after the Louisiana Purchase and of course after we get the rest of the continental United States, that of course would have changed Madison's mind as well, based on of what Adair is writing about here. So he he knows that the document is not You know, it it's probably not gonna be permanent. And that they all knew that because that's why they gave us the ability to amend it. Because they knew it would need it it would need to be a ⁓ changed over time. And I think that's Adair does such a great job showing that Madison's looking toward the future. Hamilton's looking toward the immediate, like let's get this financial system set up, let's do all of these things now, we'll avoid this or we'll we'll stomp this out ⁓ later, but but Madison is looking to posterity. Right. Right. And there's this notion that you know he begins the dissertation by sort by by saying that, you know, we we've seen Jefferson and Madison in the eighteen nineties going around the country warning about a monarch. In the seventeen nineties, I might have said eighteen nineties, seventeen nineties, warning about a monarch. And you know, he and Adair sort of Adair says, you know, modern commentators have just sort of attributed this to political rhetoric. If it's like demagoguery, it's like William Jennings Bryan, you know, or Andrew Jackson. Right. And Adair says, no. No, they're very worried about this. And they view Alexander Hamilton as the instrument through which a monarch and the Federalist Party as the the the mechanism through which a monarch will emerge. Right. Right. And ⁓ you know, and so much of the book is trying to Or the dissertation is is about trying to defend that claim. Right. That and ⁓ go ahead. No, no. It's just going back to this idea that it's not just political rhetoric, it's not just demagoguery. They didn't view themselves as political parties. We don't have, you know, the idea of legitimate opposition yet. We don't have the idea of political parties yet in the country when they're making these arguments. They don't see the need for this, ⁓ you know, they're They're obviously trying to be elected, but they're trying to be elected in a system where they believe that what they are saying is the only way forward. And that Hamilton's way will not work and it is not legitimate in the same way long term as their ideas will be. So I think that ⁓ I definitely bought into Adair's Adair's argument that they believe this. They believe this. It is not just political rhetoric because that's not necessary at the time. In the same way it will be later. Right. Yeah. I mean, I I find it very persuasive. you know, that they that that was they believed it. They believed that the Hamiltonian system was likely to either breed such a consolidation of power with somebody like Alexander Hamilton, that a monarch would functionally exist or an aristocracy or a plutocracy. would exist. Right. And that that might either consolidate into a monarchy or that the people would rise up against it violently and impose their own. Right. And that therefore the agrarian sort of a middle way. Yeah. The agrarian society. Yeah. ⁓ I reck I realized reading this book that I I maybe I didn't read Aristotle closely enough. Yeah, I had I definitely had missed that. I'm glad that I had this ⁓ refresher here, because that's not part of my reading either. Although I'm not a a philosopher in any way, shape or form, you know, introduced to Aristotle at some point, but was surprised that this went all the way, you know, over two thousand years. This ideology was over two thousand years old. That was that was surprising. Definitely missed that. Yeah, the the ⁓ you know, ⁓ Aristotle the Agrarian is sort of the ⁓ you know, the the who believes in an agrarial law. ⁓ and and I dare distinguishes between ⁓ And you could tell the great liberal arts education that he had that I didn't have. Yeah. Yeah. The university like Sowani prepared him for this. Yes. That the ⁓ but you know, he distinguishes between Aristotle's lexigr like like agrarian law, the Alexigraria of the of the Roman Empire, and like of of Julius Caesar, for instance. ⁓ and he also ⁓ but you know, but what I was so interested about. And I'd never this had never occurred to me. You know, again, and and I am laying my ignorance here for the world. Okay. I I am a I am a modern historian who grew up in public, who went to public universities. And so did, you know, I've read Aristotle, but I've never really been given that probably the proper instruction on him that I should have been. ⁓ you know, I've read a lot of I I got that with Marx and Adam Smith. I don't think I got I didn't get it with Aristotle. ⁓ Right. There there's a history of capitalism literature in American historiography. ⁓ and one of the great qu one of the questions, and I I be honest, I I don't know that it's a particularly gr useful question. It has some value, but it's like when does capitalism start? And which inevitably makes it a semantical question. And you start arguing and and you know, it's it's a question I think that the Marxists like because it matters in their ⁓ their structure at history. But ⁓ Adair here, although he's not saying that because he's not contending with the history of capitalism literature, but he's describing a Greek world that is essentially capitalist. Yeah. And he distinct you know, Aristotle is distinguishing, you know, I think what I was familiar with in Aristotle is the economymia. notion, which is like, you know, household management, and this is where we get the term economics from that you know, produce to consume, that kind of thing. But Adair, there's this whole other world in Aristotle that I was unaware of. Mm-hmm. Thanks. Right. Where he's talking about the logistics, investment, ⁓ the networks How money is changing hands across the entire economy. And Aristotle blames that for the class conflict. ⁓ but you know, ⁓ it suggests a far more economically complicated Greek world than I had ⁓ than I had imagined. Right. Yes, I agree with you. And anytime we have any kind of I mean, we're here to share our ignorance in some cases and this is a safe space for that. So I appreciate that because I feel the same. You know, I didn't I mean I went to excellent universities that I'm very proud of my education, but I did not get that. No. That was like you said, that was very new to me. And it was I I enjoyed learning about it. And it was surprising. but I agree with you. I agree with you. So I'm glad you pointed that out. Yeah, I I d there are many times, especially when I'm reading intellectual histories, where I'm just like, I needed I didn't get this liberal arts education. No, not in the same way, no. No, I did not either. But actually But makes sense. It sorry, go ahead. It it fixes that puzzle. You know, I'm I'm not an intellectual historian. And so like you said, whenever I read intellectual history, it really does open my eyes and put those puzzle pieces together because like Adair says, it's a piece. It may not be the entire story, but it's worth looking into. It's worth digging into. ⁓ and this our our experiences with intellectual histories throughout this podcast. Absolutely agree. It is worth looking into. It has changed the way that I look at my own work for sure. I agree. I mean, I I haven't the the the vault, you know, I don't know how many true intellectual histories we've read for this podcast so far. A handful. Anyway. Right. ⁓ And you know, it it it's not often that I get I've got a daughter, I'm constantly confronted with my own ignorance. But other other than that teenagers. Well, she's not a teenager yet, but she's five, but well, you got teenagers, so yeah. Yeah. ⁓ god. So we're we're constantly and reminded of our own ignorance. Yes. Yes. But these intellectual reading these intellectual histories for this podcast has been of an enormous value to me. Yeah. Yeah. too. But ⁓ that's definitely how again, then puzzle pieces you can fit in. Right. Right. And ⁓ and it and and I think it it it warns you away from overly deterministic conclusions. Yes. I agree with that as well. And that's part of what comps is supposed to do in the first place. I mean, that's our our target audience, right? These these graduate students who are starting to piece all of these things together. And their comprehensive exams are supposed to show how they've pieced all of these ideas together. And so that's I I think that we're working all of this out in real time in the way that they would work this out in a seminar if they were still reading these texts. Right. And so I think we are achieving our goal with this. I hope so. I think we are too. I think so. Yeah. But anyway, so if you're if you're interested in really where the notion Of Hamilton as the sorry, of Madison as the genius of the American Constitution. It's this dissertation. Absolutely. And the foundation of the Republican synthesis. Even if he doesn't get all of the credit, because we don't really have that. I mean, we don't have the published monograph, which of course is gonna limit his, you know, larger standing in the field. That's gonna limit the the way that this book is is kind of passed around, it's kind of passed around underground. So they're conversing with it and they're talking with it, but it's not got this popular audience the way we see with these other books. But this is the foundation. I mean, this is in the nineteen forties and we're seeing this argument made that early. And so if you want to know about the foundation of the Republican synthesis, you've got ⁓ Adair, you've got Robbins, you've got Balin, you've got Wood, you know, we've kind of created this through line now for you. And I think that that is I mean, I think that's important to look back at it here. I'm so glad that you brought this book to our or this dissertation to our attention because I do understand Balin and Wood better. I do understand the Constitutional Convention in a way that I didn't before. And of course I come I mean we all love Madison now. We all we all know how important Madison is now. But knowing that that wasn't always the case was interesting to find out and to know where that came from. Well again, one of those puzzle pieces that I put together with this work. ⁓ when you read, if you go back and you read that ⁓ that article that I for people that I I recommended, his ⁓ disputed authorship of the Federalist Papers article, where he really kind of makes the case that these p here are the papers that are Hamilton's and here are Madison's. Here's where the confusion came from, but here's why these are Madison's. And that Hamilton gets credit for 15 or 20 that are not his. Right. and ⁓ but it's really, you really, when you read that, you get an ex, you get this ⁓ understanding of how popular, you know. I I think today, especially when the Hamilton musical came out, there was this. In the Chernow biography, there was this idea that Hamilton is underappreciated. Yeah. And therefore we are going to re we're going to recover Alexander Hamilton for another generation. Right. Adair is doing that for Madison. Yes. Because there was a time when Hamilton was considered the genius of the Constitution, not Madison. Right. The reason Chernow and the musical had to happen to bring back Hamilton is because of the assault that a dare launches against Alexander Hamilton. Yes, it's a corrective. Right. It's this corrective that we see. Yes, salvaging Hamilton from this, from what we see with the dare. Because other intellectual historians, as the Republican synthesis becomes more popular, they're looking to Madison. They're looking to this ideology. And it and and I'm glad you brought up the Hamilton musical because in that Madison is a side character. Jefferson, you know, when you think of the two, Jefferson is the main character in that. And what we see is, no, Madison is the main character. Whether he wanted to be or not, he is the main character in this story. Yeah. I and that's the you know, j the i the the the notion of like, you know, Jefferson is a tremendous political animal and he's a tremendous political philosopher. But he was sort of like had flights of fancy and and that kind of thing, right? Right. You know, Madison is the grounded one. Exactly. Right. Exactly. Jefferson's the idealist. Jefferson's a still Jefferson is attached to Locke. Right. Right. Madison is attached to Hume. Right. And that's what that comes through in this dissertation is Hume. Absolutely. You mentioned it earlier, but yeah. It's Madison has gotten has moved past Locke. Right. Right. He's and you know, Hume is after Locke, so that makes sense. But Madison has moved past Locke. And Jefferson is still sort of stuck in a Lockean mind, fully Locke in mindset. Right. It almost seems as if Madison has accepted Locke. Okay, this is accepted. Now what do we do about it? Right. What is the answer? And he finds that solution, that answer in Hume. Mm-hmm. Right. And the the notion, and this is ⁓ the the notion that the the large republic, and again, ⁓ so much of this is focused on Federalist Ten. And for people who who get who are tired of hearing of Federalist Ten because they've been forced to read Federalist Ten. ⁓ in their classes and whatnot, are like, stop talking about Federalist ten. I I get it. Get it. But the reason you got that is because of this dissertation. Yes. Yes. It is important. Federalists, you know, it's because of this dissertation. Not only, but like he really gives it the res he he really brings it to bear. And ⁓ the Adair says that ⁓ You know, it's not at a whole cloth. Madison doesn't fully invent it. He's taking traces of Hume, traces from other places, but really Hume. But he's like, but he puts it together ingeniously. Right. And ⁓ and part of his experience that he he he uses here is his experience as a Presbyterian in Virginia. Whereas he looked at kind he looked at places and he said, okay. When there's only two religions, they go to war with each other. When there's several religions, they don't. Right. And and it's like, ⁓ but what if we do that with economic factions? Right. Right. ⁓ and then yeah, I'm not and and and I and I didn't know this about Hume. Maybe you did. I I certainly didn't, but that Hume has this whole system of representative, like idealized representative government. That Madison cribbs off of. He massively changes it, but like the a couple of basic concepts are retained. Right. And ⁓ if you want to know where the representative kind of ethos of the constitution comes from, intellectually it's Hume. Right. And I I didn't know any of that. Yeah, and he put it together for me. So I you know, Locke and Hume, we we learn about those, we study those, we've got the basics down, ⁓ with those, ⁓ with that ideology, but he definitely put that together with the constitutional convention. So that was more he draws that out very clearly. Right. Anyway, ⁓ I enjoyed it. Thanks for indulging me. It was wonderful. I'm glad that you suggested it. It was a it was a great dissertation. It was so interesting knowing that this was an unpublished dissertation that had such a just seismic influence on the field. And it took time, but it really did have this this massive influence on the field in a way that ⁓ I just I don't think you can fully appreciate until you read it. Mm-hmm. And I agree. Read the dissertation. I did read, you know, I said I read some of the ⁓ published work and I read Joyce Applebee's, she was one of his students, her foreword. And I liked I liked most of it. I liked how she talked about him as being so cerebral. And I did you see that in the work. You know, you read the dissertation first, and then you you look at how people are talking about him in this work, and she just talks about how he wants to be in those moments he's studying. He really wants to understand the context in which he's studying. And I think that's so important because we've talked about these historians who are writing history but looking at the context in which they're writing, like especially in the 1960s. And they're asking these historical questions and their answers are influenced by what they're seeing around them. And I don't see that with ⁓ this dissertation in the same way that I saw it with the other readings that we've done. He really is trying to get into their minds. He really is taking themselves back to the 1780s. And even, you know, talking about Aristotle, he is he is bringing this history out in a way I really don't think that we've seen in the same way before in the readings we've done. And so I thought that was really special. And she does point that out in the foreword that she wrote. But just knowing that he was as cerebral as he seemed was just I'm I'm glad to know that. I'm glad to know because it came across. Yeah. It's ⁓ yeah, it's you're you're right. It's it's unlike I I can't think of another per another example as as strong as this. Not only among our readings, but any reading that I've done. Yeah. Yeah. Where you he seems to be able to He makes a plausible you can plausibly imagine that he is fully inside their heads. Yes. Yes. And it he it comes across like you feel it. Yeah. And even in like footnotes of Governor Morris, you know, or ⁓ or Pickney. Right. Or Pierce. You know, they're he he he seems to they don't usually make it in the main text, they're usually in the footnotes. But Which were very good, as you said earlier. Yeah. Worth reading. You cannot read this without reading the footnote. No. the but there there are moments where you're just like, Yeah, that's that's basically kind of that's kind of what I would have imagined Governor Morris would have said. Or how we would have thought about that. Right, right. They're three dimensional characters now. Right. Right. And ⁓ And yeah, and and he says you know, and and and and there's lots of qualifiers throughout and that kind of thing, you know, but it's it's just it's so it's a lovely, it's a lovely dissertation. I agree. I agree. Anyway, ⁓ so we're gonna do it on a short break, not a real break, but we're we're quick turnaround is what I mean. We'll be ⁓ we'll have the whole group here to talk about the Federalist Papers ⁓ in honor of July fourth. Yes, and that'll be a lot of fun. We're getting the group together. We are. We are the bands coming together. Yes. All right. Well, Marie, thank you very much. And we'll ⁓ we'll see you next week. All right. Bye.